What's more stable: 98 or XP?

Samtheman1k

Samtheman1k

Samtheman1k

Associate
Joined
15 Dec 2005
Posts
2,403
I need a low spec PC at home to run some home automation software. All the PC will be doing is running this small piece of software that reads and writes to the serial port and to a digital input/output PCI card (national instruments).

Due to the nature of the system, I wish the PC to be switched on 24/7 and have a maximum uptime, i.e. never crash or require rebooting :rolleyes:

Which OS would be best for this? It will be a clean install with no drivers loaded (except for the I/O driver). I am limited to these two OSes due to the custom software unfortunately.

Thanks!
 
Ok, so would XP [Pro] be more stable as a core installation, or with SP1 or SP2? Again, just looking for maximum up time, don't care about functionality, security etc.
 
How low spec?

I would go 2k as opposed to the other 2 windows options (98 or XP) for a low spec, high availability machine - or linux with just a console session or if you need a gui, running fluxbox or enlightenment.
 
=walls= said:
How low spec?

I would go 2k as opposed to the other 2 windows options (98 or XP) for a low spec, high availability machine - or linux with just a console session or if you need a gui, running fluxbox or enlightenment.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that. If you want low spec and incredible reliability, then Windows 2000 (with latest service pack) is solid as a rock. XP is, but requires a higher spec. There's not a lot (in terms of the under the hood bits) that separate 2000 and XP, so I'd've thought if your software works on 98 or XP, it'll work in 2000.

Wouldn't touch 98 with a barge pole.
 
Unfortunately I don't have w2k disc, so that's not an option and the development software I'm using won't work on Linux :( In terms of spec, it will be whatever I can get my hands on, so probably something less than 1G+128MB RAM kind of thing...it doesn't matter really as I'm doing very little processing, so as long as the OS can run (doesn't need to run fast), then that is fine.

Guess it's a fully patched XP install then!
 
What you could do is nLite a copy of XP with SP2 or nLite it in if you haven't got it. Then integrate http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/ to get all the latest Windows Update files since SP2. Yesterday's won't be in there yet.

You could then remove everything you won't need to get rid of functionality you won't need. This means there should be less files and programs to go wrong for you.:)
 
With 128Mb ram it'll be really slow with XP, it needs 196Mb a least so it isn't continually dumping info on and off the hard disk. 98 will run better in that case but if you can up the machine to 256Mb RAM then it'll be fine. You can get old 128Mb sticks on eBay for like £3 these days, or MM
 
Agreed with Bledd...They are all stable, its just other things that can change the stability of an OS, btu its rarely the OS itself.

If you are as you say only going to running one program that does a task every so often, then there quite probably isnt going to be any real difference whether you opt for 98 or XP? - Especially if it is not going to be put online... If the PC is just going to be run and left alone then its just a matter of which you can get hold of first/cheapest maybe?

Come to think of it, there probably wont be any difference if you were to run 95 either, but that might be pushing the boat a little too much I think!

My vote would though, have to go to XP or 2000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom